Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

[Unregistered]

Come on Snowflake. You are proving you're even more biased and worse than the supposed illiterates you despise. Name the worse thing Trump did from the Mueller report. Just one?

Directed McGahn to fire Mueller and then tried to get McGahn to lie about that direction. To obstruct all you need to do is make an attempt. It's irrelevant that it wasn't acted upon.

Now why don't you answer my question about Barr? Before rationalizing why those things that Trump did are no big deal because McGahn refused to act upon the directions.

[Unregistered]

Hey Comrade Enabler, please explain how in the world this lying tweet has any truth to it:

"Robert Mueller would have brought charges, if he had ANYTHING, but there were no charges to bring!"

[Unregistered]

Directed McGahn to fire Mueller and then tried to get McGahn to lie about that direction. To obstruct all you need to do is make an attempt. It's irrelevant that it wasn't acted upon.

Now why don't you answer my question about Barr? Before rationalizing why those things that Trump did are no big deal because McGahn refused to act upon the directions.

Come on Snowflake. Article II, section ii of the constitution... the President can fire Mueller if he wanted to. It has happen before. Other Presidents have fired special and independent counsels that were looking at potential nefarious activities by the President and his associates. Case in point, most recently, Bush and Valerie Plame.

So your most egregious claim, falls flat on its face. You cant obstruct by attempting to fire Mueller if you have a right to fire him the first place. This is the real reason Mueller didn't push the obstruction case. It would be thrown out of court. Trump could have fired Mueller for any reason at any point in time even if he was getting close to a potential crime by the President, which we now know never existed.

Think about it Snowflake. This is the power the President should have. To create some order and squash political coup attempts like this was. An unelected special counsel should never have the power to take the elected President down. Congress can, for political reasons, but they know that this "obstruction" case it is super weak in regards to the law and in the eyes of the public and they don't have the balls to even attempt it.

[Unregistered]

Come on Snowflake. Article II, section ii of the constitution... the President can fire Mueller if he wanted to. It has happen before. Other Presidents have fired special and independent counsels that were looking at potential nefarious activities by the President and his associates. Case in point, most recently, Bush and Valerie Plame.

So your most egregious claim, falls flat on its face. You cant obstruct by attempting to fire Mueller if you have a right to fire him the first place. This is the real reason Mueller didn't push the obstruction case. It would be thrown out of court. Trump could have fired Mueller for any reason at any point in time even if he was getting close to a potential crime by the President, which we now know never existed.

Think about it Snowflake. This is the power the President should have. To create some order and squash political coup attempts like this was. An unelected special counsel should never have the power to take the elected President down. Congress can, for political reasons, but they know that this "obstruction" case it is super weak in regards to the law and in the eyes of the public and they don't have the balls to even attempt it.

I will reply to this absurd post and twisting of the law once you reply to the question I keep asking. Let me try again:

Let us know if you agree that Barr mislead the American public during his sworn testimony about the Mueller report.

[Unregistered]

I will reply to this absurd post and twisting of the law once you reply to the question I keep asking. Let me try again:

Let us know if you agree that Barr mislead the American public during his sworn testimony about the Mueller report.

No Barr didn't because it's Barr's job to take the Mueller report and interpret it or even disagree with it. Barr didn't even have to give a statement. Mueller works for Barr. Barr could have just stated that no charges are forthcoming from the Mueller's investigation period! By law that's all Barr had to do. Barr has the same interpretation of the constitution that I explained above. You and others may disagree but that's not the way it works. You just want to see how the sausage was made because it goes against your political beliefs. They don't have to let you see that and they shouldn't. Prosecutors argue all the time about evidence, motive and whether they should go forward with a case. The head prosecutor makes the final call (you should watch some law and order). All that discussion should not be public because it would taint every person that were falsely accused or no crime existed and never prosecuted. Barr was overly transparent but he has the final say.

[Unregistered]

Come on Snowflake. Article II, section ii of the constitution... the President can fire Mueller if he wanted to. It has happen before. Other Presidents have fired special and independent counsels that were looking at potential nefarious activities by the President and his associates. Case in point, most recently, Bush and Valerie Plame.

So your most egregious claim, falls flat on its face. You cant obstruct by attempting to fire Mueller if you have a right to fire him the first place. This is the real reason Mueller didn't push the obstruction case. It would be thrown out of court. Trump could have fired Mueller for any reason at any point in time even if he was getting close to a potential crime by the President, which we now know never existed.

Think about it Snowflake. This is the power the President should have. To create some order and squash political coup attempts like this was. An unelected special counsel should never have the power to take the elected President down. Congress can, for political reasons, but they know that this "obstruction" case it is super weak in regards to the law and in the eyes of the public and they don't have the balls to even attempt it.

Two questions:

1. Can the president fire someone under Article II, Section ii of the Constitution based upon that person's race?

2. Can the president fire someone under Article II, Section ii of the Constitution in exchange for a bribe?

[Unregistered]

No Barr didn't because it's Barr's job to take the Mueller report and interpret it or even disagree with it. Barr didn't even have to give a statement. Mueller works for Barr. Barr could have just stated that no charges are forthcoming from the Mueller's investigation period! By law that's all Barr had to do. Barr has the same interpretation of the constitution that I explained above. You and others may disagree but that's not the way it works. You just want to see how the sausage was made because it goes against your political beliefs. They don't have to let you see that and they shouldn't. Prosecutors argue all the time about evidence, motive and whether they should go forward with a case. The head prosecutor makes the final call (you should watch some law and order). All that discussion should not be public because it would taint every person that were falsely accused or no crime existed and never prosecuted. Barr was overly transparent but he has the final say.

How could Barr have ever concluded that charges would be forthcoming when the Justice Department policy is that a president can't be charged with a crime while in office? Even under seal?

[Unregistered]

No Barr didn't because it's Barr's job to take the Mueller report and interpret it or even disagree with it. Barr didn't even have to give a statement. Mueller works for Barr. Barr could have just stated that no charges are forthcoming from the Mueller's investigation period! By law that's all Barr had to do. Barr has the same interpretation of the constitution that I explained above. You and others may disagree but that's not the way it works. You just want to see how the sausage was made because it goes against your political beliefs. They don't have to let you see that and they shouldn't. Prosecutors argue all the time about evidence, motive and whether they should go forward with a case. The head prosecutor makes the final call (you should watch some law and order). All that discussion should not be public because it would taint every person that were falsely accused or no crime existed and never prosecuted. Barr was overly transparent but he has the final say.

See, now you're being dishonest. Regardless of what Barr could and could not have done, once he was under oath he had to answer truthfully. And as the Attorney General of the U.S., he had an obligation not to mislead the public. The things he lied about (or misled the American public about) were not his subjective interpretations of the law. He could make whatever final call you think he has the authority to make. But that is completely another subject. Which is the typical Trumpian response. Deflect and change the subject.

[Unregistered]

Two questions:

1. Can the president fire someone under Article II, Section ii of the Constitution based upon that person's race?

2. Can the president fire someone under Article II, Section ii of the Constitution in exchange for a bribe?

he can fire someone in the executive branch for any reason- that doesn't mean that person doesn't have recourse under your first scenario
or that the president in taking a bribe has committed a crime which is your 2nd scenario
but either way the person is still fired

[Unregistered]

How could Barr have ever concluded that charges would be forthcoming when the Justice Department policy is that a president can't be charged with a crime while in office? Even under seal?

Mueller stated in his report that if he had proof that Trump obstructed he would have stated it in the report regardless of the policy he just wouldn't have indicted- he didn't state that in his report ( he stated 10 possible things Trump did that could be viewed as obstruction)
then he did what no prosecutor ever does
he stated that he couldn't prove Trump was innocent of a crime
that goes against every foundational tenet of our judicial system- we don't prove innocence we prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt- which shows you that he viewed Trump guilty until proved innocent
that's just disgraceful and un American

[Unregistered]

See, now you're being dishonest. Regardless of what Barr could and could not have done, once he was under oath he had to answer truthfully. And as the Attorney General of the U.S., he had an obligation not to mislead the public. The things he lied about (or misled the American public about) were not his subjective interpretations of the law. He could make whatever final call you think he has the authority to make. But that is completely another subject. Which is the typical Trumpian response. Deflect and change the subject.

not even Mueller disagreed with Barrs interpretation of his report- he didn't mislead anyone
he just kept it short and sweet- you wanted the dirt
you either bring charges or you don't- Mueller didn't and that's what Barr stated

[Unregistered]

See, now you're being dishonest. Regardless of what Barr could and could not have done, once he was under oath he had to answer truthfully. And as the Attorney General of the U.S., he had an obligation not to mislead the public. The things he lied about (or misled the American public about) were not his subjective interpretations of the law. He could make whatever final call you think he has the authority to make. But that is completely another subject. Which is the typical Trumpian response. Deflect and change the subject.

So what did Barr lie about under oath exactly?

[Unregistered]

not even Mueller disagreed with Barrs interpretation of his report- he didn't mislead anyone
he just kept it short and sweet- you wanted the dirt
you either bring charges or you don't- Mueller didn't and that's what Barr stated

Mueller was conflicted!

[Unregistered]

Mueller was conflicted!

Mueller is playing politics- and is media savy
he knew he had nothing within 2 weeks of being appointed- (his new team had already done the same investigation for the FBI) this is all about optics and not about rule of law

[Unregistered]

Mueller is playing politics- and is media savy
he knew he had nothing within 2 weeks of being appointed- (his new team had already done the same investigation for the FBI) this is all about optics and not about rule of law

I recommend you read the full report before you come to that conclusion. If only Congress would do the same.